In short: The comment documents that the draft EIS fails to justify complete repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule over narrower alternatives, specifically citing the 152,000 acres of roadless areas in Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests and the associated economic and ecological costs.
Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.
Scorecard
Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.
- Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
- Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
- EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
- Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
- EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
- RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
- AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
- LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.
How hard it is to set aside
A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.
Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.
Standard dismissals it defeats
- Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
- Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Still open to the agency
- Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
- Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
- Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
- Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
- Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
- No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
- Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
Topics
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect headwater streams, wildlife habitat”
- “Roads fragment habitat, increase erosion”
- “retain the current protections”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “backcountry recreation that supports Western North Carolina's economy”
- “recreation losses could reach $6.1 million each year”
- “quality of life”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “The wildfire argument does not justify complete rescission”
- “Roadless Rule already allows work needed to address wildfire”
- “create more human ignition points”
- Governance Policy Process
- “I ask USDA to select the No Action Alternative”
- “draft environmental impact statement does not explain why complete repeal is necessary”
- “develop a stronger alternative that preserves national protections”
What it names
- Roadless areas
- Cheoah BaldDobson KnobSouth Mills RiverWilson Creek
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceAlternativeLegal